154 —ביאור פירושי שמות בחסידות ויסוד לדברים הנראים כחסרי ביסוס

Shalom u'Vrachah!

One of the aims of establishing this publication is to serve as a platform from which Anash, and all who are associated with them, can discuss any difficulty in the teachings of Chassidus in general and especially in books published recently, as stated in the editorial introduction to issue A. Of course, only those questions and answers that are relevant to the entire readership will be printed in the journal. Questions that concern only an individual will be answered either by letter to the questioner or briefly in this section.

In opening this section, I wish to answer a general question that I have heard many ask when reading the talks published by the Otzar HaChassidim editorial board: This or that topic mentioned in a sichah is not explained at all. The explanation of a verse or statement of our Sages given in the sichah seems to be mere wordplay without any foundation or source.

The answer is: Even though most of these printed talks are understandable even to those who have not studied Chabad Chassidus, there are nevertheless several topics—especially those mentioned only incidentally—that cannot be understood except after an introduction to Chassidic study or at least knowledge of its basic principles. In other discourses or talks, these matters are certainly explained sufficiently, for "the words of Torah are poor in one place and rich in another" (Braitah of 32 Middos 15; see also Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah ch. 3 end halachah 5). Similarly, most explanations of verses and statements from our Sages found in these talks have their source in our Sages' words or are based on what is explained by them in both revealed and hidden Torah.

For example, I bring here one puzzling "wondrous statement" (according to those asking), which was asked about the booklet "Bikur Chicago" just published. I chose this question because the questioners considered it so puzzling that they thought it did not deserve an answer at all. When it becomes clear that even such a question stems only from lack of knowledge on the part of the questioners—and moreover, that this wondrous statement has an explicit source among our Sages—it follows all the more so for other questions.

When this talk was first published—mimeographed, winter 5702—the critics split into two groups: One group, eager to find fault and happy to find errors, declared: These have always been our words—that chassidim use hints and wordplay without any foundation or source; here is further proof! For although "Akavya" and "Mahalalel" are linguistically related to "ekev" (heel) and "hallel" (praise), is there any logical reason to say that what is stated in the Mishnah—"Akavya ben Mahalalel says"—has any connection with "a foot of a davener who praises G‑d says...?!" And not only this—the chassidim added another twist: Akavya and Mahalalel were separate people, yet their interpretation treats them as if they were one person!

The second group—those who wish to judge everyone favorably, even chassidim—said: It is true that Reb Baruch Mordechai's statement is mere wordplay without foundation—but it is explicitly stated in the talk itself that it is just wordplay! And if great maggidim (preachers) may offer such interpretations, why should chassidim be deprived? Especially since the idea expressed here is lofty: highlighting the greatness of heartfelt service.

Reb Baruch Mordechai's saying raised such a question that even among Anash there were those who asked: Why publish things that give opponents ammunition—see how chassidim add yet another interpretation with no logical basis or source among our Sages?

If we consider who said this saying and under what circumstances—Reb Baruch Mordechai was one of the great scholars; already as a young man during the time of the Vilna Gaon he was head of a yeshivah in Vilna—and he said this witty remark as a response to his brother-in-law—a genius opposed to Chassidus and son of an opponent—in front of Vilna's greatest scholars after hearing deep Talmudic analysis. There can be no doubt that Reb Baruch Mordechai would not respond with mere wit or moralizing without strong support from our Sages—so strong that even his brother-in-law and all present would have had to agree. Especially since at that time most opponents held that maggidim (preachers) were only for women, simple folk, or scholars too tired for study; everything required proof from Torah sources.

The method of interpreting names—finding connections between a name's meaning and its bearer's essence—is widespread throughout both Written and Oral Torah. Not only with generic names indicating species traits—as our Sages say (Bereishis Rabbah ch. 17): G‑d brought animals before Adam so he could name them according to their nature—but also with personal names. For example (Bereishis 3:20): "And he called her name Chava because she was..." Even more: We find names interpreted even when their giver did not intend such meaning—for example (Bereishis 27:36): "Is he not rightly named Yaakov? For he has deceived me...", repeated similarly by Nabal's wife (I Samuel 25:25). This appears frequently among our Sages.

Even if one argues there's no proof from rabbinic interpretations on biblical names—since perhaps every name mentioned in Torah must contain some hint—we find (Yoma ibid.) Rabbi Meir would deduce character traits from people's names even among his contemporaries; real-life cases proved him right. The Talmud concludes there that while one's name does not determine behavior absolutely (since free choice remains), it does indicate one's natural tendencies—as explained by Rambam at length.

This may also be what Bereishis Rabbah means when it says some people have ugly names but beautiful deeds—to teach us a name does not force behavior absolutely; but even more so we find among our Sages that a name can actually cause good or bad outcomes (Tanchuma Haazinu): One should always check carefully before naming his child—for sometimes a name brings good or bad fortune. In Yoma (38b), we see someone's death attributed to being named after a wicked person—not as punishment but because his name caused it; similarly regarding descendants (Berachos 7b): Why was Ruth so named? Because she merited King David who satisfied G‑d with songs.

Thus it's clear there's room to interpret ancestors' names regarding their children's essence—and two approaches exist among our Sages: A) Ancestors named after descendants' qualities—as with Ruth/Mordechai; B) Even if not named after descendants per se, mentioning ancestors' names when discussing children indicates something about their traits—as seen regarding Korach's lineage.

This concludes our discussion about interpreting names generally—a method rooted firmly among our Sages—not just regarding one's own name but also ancestors' names when mentioned together (as with Akavya ben Mahalalel). Specifically regarding Reb Baruch Mordechai's witty saying—it has an explicit source in Arizal's writings.

First let's cite Midrash Aggadas Bereishis (Buber edition intro ch. 11): Why was Mahalalel called so? Because he repented first by praising G‑d. In Arizal's Shaar HaGilgulim intro 31: All souls derive from Adam; each limb corresponds spiritually; specifically, Akavya ben Mahalalel's soul comes from Adam's heel ('akev'), hence his name Akavya; since Akavya rectified also aspects associated with Mahalalel ben Kenan, he's called Akavya ben Mahalalel. See also Mishnah Edios ch. 5 mishna 6 about Akavya ben Mahalalel's wisdom/humility/fear-of-sin; Ba'al HaTurim on Eikev; Shelah etc.—on 'Eikev anavah yiras Hashem' ('Because humility [and] fear of G‑d').

The explanation behind this seemingly strange witticism serves as an example for us: Certainly all statements found in holy sichos—even those appearing odd—have proper explanation and basis. On such matters our Sages said (Yerushalmi Peah ch.1 halachah 1): 'For it is not an empty thing from you; if it seems empty—it is your fault for not laboring enough.' If this applies even to early chassidim's witticisms—all the more so for their teachings and service!

Summary

This letter teaches us never to dismiss seemingly strange insights found within Chassidus as baseless wordplay—they often rest upon deep foundations within Torah sources both revealed and hidden. With effort and study we uncover their true meaning.